FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Robert Bulka
In Reed S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, 522 P.3d 182 (Alaska 2022), the
supreme court held that collateral consequences allowed it to review an otherwise–moot appeal of
a lower court’s child–in–need–of–aid (CINA) adjudication, and found no clear error in the lower
court’s ruling that both parents’ conduct necessitated a CINA adjudication for their son. (Id. at
184). While in his father’s care, a child suffered a severe leg injury for which his father gave
conflicting explanations. (Id.). The superior court issued a CINA adjudication for the child, granted
custody to his mother, and limited the father’s contact with the family, only for authorities to arrest
the father a few months later outside the family’s home. (Id.). The lower court then adjudicated
the child as a CINA for both parents’ actions. (Id.). However, after both parents appealed, the
Office of Children’s Services advised the lower court that the child would be safe returning to his
parents’ care, leading the lower court to close the case. (Id.). The supreme court denied the parents’
motion to vacate the CINA order and dismiss their appeals, finding that while the appeals were
moot, the CINA adjudication imposed burdensome restrictions on the parents, and these “collateral
consequences” empowered the supreme court to review the case on the merits. (Id. at 188). The
court then reviewed the superior court’s CINA adjudication for clear error and found none,
explaining that the severity of the child’s leg injury, the conflicting stories presented to authorities
about the injury, the father’s failure to seek immediate medical attention for the injury, and the
mother’s allowing contact between the child and his father in violation of no–contact orders were
sufficient justification for upholding a CINA designation. (Id. at 192). Affirming the lower court’s
CINA adjudication on the merits, the supreme court held that collateral consequences allowed it
to review an otherwise–moot appeal, and found no clear error in the superior court’s ruling that
both parents’ conduct necessitated a CINA adjudication. (Id. at 184).
